A Brief Mind-body Intervention Is Feasible and May Prevent Persistent Pain After Acute Orthopaedic Traumas: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% to 50% of patients develop persistent pain after traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Psychosocial factors are an important predictor of persistent pain; however, there are no evidence-based, mind-body interventions to prevent persistent pain for this patient population. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does the Toolkit for Optimal Recovery after Injury (TOR) achieve a priori feasibility benchmarks in a multisite randomized control trial (RCT)? (2) Does TOR demonstrate a preliminary effect in improving pain, as well as physical and emotional function? METHODS: This pilot RCT of TOR versus a minimally enhanced usual care comparison group (MEUC) was conducted among 195 adults with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury at risk for persistent pain at four geographically diverse Level 1 trauma centers between October 2021 to August 2023. Fifty percent (97 of 195) of participants were randomized to TOR (mean age 43 ± 17 years; 67% [65 of 97] women) and 50% (98) to MEUC (mean age 45 ± 16 years; 67% [66 of 98] women). In TOR, 24% (23 of 97) of patients were lost to follow-up, whereas in the MEUC, 17% (17 of 98) were lost. At 4 weeks, 78% (76 of 97) of patients in TOR and 95% (93 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments; by 12 weeks, 76% (74 of 97) of patients in TOR and 83% (81 of 98) in the MEUC completed the assessments (all participants were still included in the analysis consistent with an intention-to-treat approach). The TOR has four weekly video-administered sessions that teach pain coping skills. The MEUC is an educational pamphlet. Both were delivered in addition to usual care. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment (the percentage of patients who met study criteria and enrolled) and data collection, appropriateness of treatment (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), acceptability (the percentage of patients in TOR who attend at least three of four sessions), and treatment satisfaction (the percent of participants in TOR who score above the midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale). Secondary outcomes included additional feasibility (including collecting data on narcotics and rescue medications and adverse events), fidelity (whether the intervention was delivered as planned) and acceptability metrics (patients and staff), pain (numeric rating scale), physical function (Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire [SMFA], PROMIS), emotional function (PTSD [PTSD Checklist], depression [Center for Epidemiologic Study of Depression]), and intervention targets (pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness). Assessments occurred at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: Several outcomes exceeded a priori benchmarks: feasibility of recruitment (89% [210 of 235] of eligible participants consented), appropriateness (TOR: 73% [66 of 90] scored > midpoint on the Credibility and Expectancy Scale), data collection (79% [154 of 195] completed all surveys), satisfaction (TOR: 99% [75 of 76] > midpoint on the Client Satisfaction Scale), and acceptability (TOR: 73% [71 of 97] attended all four sessions). Participation in TOR, compared with the MEUC, was associated with improvement from baseline to postintervention and from baseline to follow-up in physical function (SMFA, baseline to post: -7 [95% CI -11 to -4]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -6 [95% CI -11 to -1]; p = 0.02), PROMIS (PROMIS-PF, baseline to follow-up: 2 [95% CI 0 to 4]; p = 0.045), pain at rest (baseline to post: -1.2 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.6]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -1 [95% CI -1.7 to -0.3]; p = 0.003), activity (baseline to post: -0.7 [95% CI -1.3 to -0.1]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -0.8 [95% CI -1.6 to -0.1]; p = 0.04), depressive symptoms (baseline to post: -6 [95% CI -9 to -3]; p < 0.001; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -2]; p < 0.002), and posttraumatic symptoms (baseline to post: -4 [95% CI -7 to 0]; p = 0.03; baseline to follow-up: -5 [95% CI -9 to -1]; p = 0.01). Improvements were generally clinically important and sustained or continued through the 3 months of follow-up (that is, above the minimum clinically important different [MCID] of 7 for the SMFA, the MCID of 3.6 for PROMIS, the MCID of 2 for pain at rest and pain during activity, the MCID of more than 10% change in depressive symptoms, and the MCID of 10 for posttraumatic symptoms). There were treatment-dependent improvements in pain catastrophizing, pain anxiety, coping, and mindfulness. CONCLUSION: TOR was feasible and potentially efficacious in preventing persistent pain among patients with an acute orthopaedic traumatic injury. Using TOR in clinical practice may prevent persistent pain after orthopaedic traumatic injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.

Orthopedic Surgery Volume Trends During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Postvaccination Era: Implications for Healthcare Planning.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic decreased surgical volumes, but prior studies have not investigated recovery through 2022, or analyzed specific procedures or cases of urgency within orthopedic surgery. The aims of this study were to (1) quantify the declines in orthopedic surgery volume during and after the pandemic peak, (2) characterize surgical volume recovery during the postvaccination period, and (3) characterize recovery in the 1-year postvaccine release period. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 27,476 orthopedic surgeries from January 2019 to December 2022 at one urban academic quaternary referral center. We reported trends over the following periods: baseline pre-COVID-19 period (1/6/2019 to 1/4/2020), COVID-19 peak (3/15/2020 to 5/16/2020), post-COVID-19 peak (5/17/2020 to 1/2/2021), postvaccine release (1/3/2021 to 1/1/2022), and 1-year postvaccine release (1/2/2022 to 12/30/2022). Comparisons were performed with 2 sample t-tests. RESULTS: Pre-COVID-19 surgical volume fell by 72% at the COVID-19 peak, especially impacting elective procedures (P < .001) and both hip and knee joint arthroplasty (P < .001) procedures. Nonurgent (P = .024) and urgent or emergency (P = .002) cases also significantly decreased. Postpeak recovery before the vaccine saw volumes rise to 92% of baseline, which further rose to 96% and 94% in 2021 and 2022, respectively. While elective procedures surpassed the baseline in 2022, nonurgent and urgent or emergency surgeries remained low. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic substantially reduced orthopedic surgical volumes, which have still not fully recovered through 2022, particularly nonelective procedures. The differential recovery within an orthopedic surgery program may result in increased morbidity and can serve to inform department-level operational recovery.

Epidemiology of pelvic and acetabular fractures in the USA from 2007 to 2014.

Incidence of pelvic and acetabular fracture is increasing in Europe. From 2007 to 2014 in the USA, this study found an age-adjusted incidence of 198 and 40 fractures/100,000/year, respectively, much higher than what has been described before. Incidence remained steady over that period and only a small increase in incidence of pelvic fracture in men was identified. PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of pelvic ring and acetabular fractures in the USA over the period 2007-2014 and to examine trends over time. METHODS: Retrospective population-based observational study using data from the Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS), a 20% stratified all-payer sample of US hospital-based emergency departments (EDs). All patients seen in the ED and diagnosed with pelvic/acetabular fracture from 2007 to 2014 were included. The primary outcome was age-adjusted incidence of pelvic and acetabular fractures per 100,000 persons/years. Secondary outcomes included incidence stratified by age and sex, patient- and hospital-related characteristics, and ED procedures. Tests for linear trends were used to determine if there were statistically significant differences by sex and age groups over time. RESULTS: The age-adjusted incidence of pelvic fracture was 198 fractures/100,000/year, 323 in women and 114 in men. The age-adjusted incidence of acetabular fracture was 40 fractures/100,000/year, 36 in women and 51 in men. A small increase in the age-adjusted incidence of pelvic fracture in men was the only significant trend observed during the study time (p = 0.03). Over that period, the mean age of patients at presentation increased, as well as their number of comorbidities and associated fragility fractures, and they were more often sent home or to nursing facilities. CONCLUSIONS: When considering all patients coming to the ED, not only those admitted to the hospital, adjusted incidence of pelvic and acetabular fracture is much higher than what has been described before. Contrarily to the global increase seen in other countries, incidence of pelvic and acetabular fractures dropped in the USA from 2007 to 2014 and only a small increase in age-adjusted incidence of pelvic fracture in men was identified.

Upper cervical spine fracture patterns and blunt cerebrovascular injuries.

PURPOSE: To determine patterns of C1 and C2 vertebral fractures that are associated with blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI). METHODS: Retrospective chart review of clinical and imaging reports at a level 1 trauma center over 10 consecutive years was conducted in patients with C1 and C2 fractures. Student t-test and chi-squared analyses were used to determine associations between fracture levels and fracture types with the presence of BCVI on CTA and/or MRI or stroke on CT and/or MRI. RESULTS: Multilevel fractures were associated with higher incidence of BCVI compared to isolated C1 or C2 fractures (p < 0.01), but not with stroke (p = 0.16). There was no difference in incidence of BCVI or stroke between isolated C1 and isolated C2 fractures (p = 0.46, p = 0.25). Involvement of the transverse foramen (TF) alone was not associated with BCVI or stroke (p = 0.10-0.40, p = 0.34-0.43). However, TF fractures that were comminuted or contained fracture fragment(s) were associated with increased BCVI (p < 0.01, p = 0.02), though not with stroke (p = 0.11, p = 0.09). In addition, high-energy mechanism of injury was also associated with BCVI (p < 0.01) and stroke (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: C1 and C2 fractures are associated with BCVI in the presence of high-energy mechanism of injury, concomitant fractures of other cervical vertebral body levels, comminuted TF fractures, or TF fractures with internal fragments. Attention to these fracture parameters is important in evaluating C1 and C2 fractures for BCVI.

Analyzing risk factors for treatment failure in fracture-related infection.

INTRODUCTION: Fracture-related infection (FRI) represents a challenging clinical scenario. Limited evidence exists regarding treatment failure after initial management of FRI. The objective of our investigation was to determine incidence and risk factors for treatment failure in FRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of patients treated for FRI between 2011 and 2015 at three level 1 trauma centers. One hundred and thirty-four patients treated for FRI were identified. Demographic and clinical variables were extracted from the medical record. Treatment failure was defined as the need for repeat debridement or surgical revision seven or more days after the presumed final procedure for infection treatment. Univariate comparisons were conducted between patients who experienced treatment failure and those who did not. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify independent associations with treatment failure. RESULTS: Of the 134 FRI patients, 51 (38.1%) experienced treatment failure. Patients who failed were more likely to have had an open injury (31% versus 17%; p = 0.05), to have undergone implant removal (p = 0.03), and additional index I&D procedures (3.3 versus 1.6; p < 0.001). Most culture results identified a single organism (62%), while 15% were culture negative. Treatment failure was more common in culture-negative infections (p = 0.08). Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was the most common organism associated with treatment failure (29%; p = 0.08). Multivariate regression demonstrated a statistically significant association between treatment failure and two or more irrigation and debridement (I&D) procedures (OR 13.22, 95% CI 4.77-36.62, p < 0.001) and culture-negative infection (OR 4.74, 95% CI 1.26-17.83, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The rate of treatment failure following FRI continues to be high. Important risk factors associated with treatment failure include open fracture, implant removal, and multiple I&D procedures. While MRSA remains common, culture-negative infection represents a novel risk factor for failure, suggesting aggressive treatment of clinically diagnosed cases remains critical even without positive culture data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study; Level III.

What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are increasingly used to measure healthcare value. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a metric that helps clinicians determine whether a statistically detectable improvement in a PROM after surgical care is likely to be large enough to be important to a patient or to justify an intervention that carries risk and cost. There are two major categories of MCID calculation methods, anchor-based and distribution-based. This variability, coupled with heterogeneous surgical cohorts used for existing MCID values, limits their application to clinical care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In our study, we sought (1) to determine MCID thresholds and attainment percentages for PROMIS after common orthopaedic procedures using distribution-based methods, (2) to use anchor-based MCID values from published studies as a comparison, and (3) to compare MCID attainment percentages using PROMIS scores to other validated outcomes tools such as the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). METHODS: This was a retrospective study at two academic medical centers and three community hospitals. The inclusion criteria for this study were patients who were age 18 years or older and who underwent elective THA for osteoarthritis, TKA for osteoarthritis, one-level posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff arthropathy, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This yielded 14,003 patients. Patients undergoing revision operations or surgery for nondegenerative pathologies and patients without preoperative PROMs assessments were excluded, leaving 9925 patients who completed preoperative PROMIS assessments and 9478 who completed other preoperative validated outcomes tools (HOOS, KOOS, numerical rating scale for leg pain, numerical rating scale for back pain, and QuickDASH). Approximately 66% (6529 of 9925) of patients had postoperative PROMIS scores (Physical Function, Mental Health, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity) and were included for analysis. PROMIS scores are population normalized with a mean score of 50 ± 10, with most scores falling between 30 to 70. Approximately 74% (7007 of 9478) of patients had postoperative historical assessment scores and were included for analysis. The proportion who reached the MCID was calculated for each procedure cohort at 6 months of follow-up using distribution-based MCID methods, which included a fraction of the SD (1/2 or 1/3 SD) and minimum detectable change (MDC) using statistical significance (such as the MDC 90 from p < 0.1). Previously published anchor-based MCID thresholds from similar procedure cohorts and analogous PROMs were used to calculate the proportion reaching MCID. RESULTS: Within a given distribution-based method, MCID thresholds for PROMIS assessments were similar across multiple procedures. The MCID threshold ranged between 3.4 and 4.5 points across all procedures using the 1/2 SD method. Except for meniscectomy (3.5 points), the anchor-based PROMIS MCID thresholds (range 4.5 to 8.1 points) were higher than the SD distribution-based MCID values (2.3 to 4.5 points). The difference in MCID thresholds based on the calculation method led to a similar trend in MCID attainment. Using THA as an example, MCID attainment using PROMIS was achieved by 76% of patients using an anchor-based threshold of 7.9 points. However, 82% of THA patients attained MCID using the MDC 95 method (6.1 points), and 88% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (3.9 points). Using the HOOS metric (scaled from 0 to 100), 86% of THA patients reached the anchor-based MCID threshold (17.5 points). However, 91% of THA patients attained the MCID using the MDC 90 method (12.5 points), and 93% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (8.4 points). In general, the proportion of patients reaching MCID was lower for PROMIS than for other validated outcomes tools; for example, with the 1/2 SD method, 72% of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy reached the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function compared with 86% on KOOS. CONCLUSION: MCID calculations can provide clinical correlation for PROM scores interpretation. The PROMIS form is increasingly used because of its generalizability across diagnoses. However, we found lower proportions of MCID attainment using PROMIS scores compared with historical PROMs. By using historical proportions of attainment on common orthopaedic procedures and a spectrum of MCID calculation techniques, the PROMIS MCID benchmarks are realizable for common orthopaedic procedures. For clinical practices that routinely collect PROMIS scores in the clinical setting, these results can be used by individual surgeons to evaluate personal practice trends and by healthcare systems to quantify whether clinical care initiatives result in meaningful differences. Furthermore, these MCID thresholds can be used by researchers conducting retrospective outcomes research with PROMIS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Computed tomography-based body composition profile as a screening tool for geriatric frailty detection.

OBJECTIVE: To assess prevalence of CT imaging-derived sarcopenia, osteoporosis, and visceral obesity in clinically frail and prefrail patients and determine their association with the diagnosis of frailty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study was constructed using our institution's pelvic trauma registry and ambulatory database registry. The study included all elderly pelvic trauma patients and ambulatory outpatients between May 2016 and March 2020 who had a comprehensive geriatric assessment and CT abdomen/pelvis within 1 year from the date of the assessment. Patients were dichotomized in prefrail or frail groups. The study excluded patients with history of metastatic disease or malignancy requiring chemotherapy. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 151 elderly female and 65 male patients. Each gender population was subdivided into frail (114 female [75%], 51 male [78%]) and prefrail (37 female [25%], 14 male [22%]) patients. CT-imaging-derived diagnosis of osteoporosis (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI: 1.2-5.5) and sarcopenia (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI: 1.2-5.6) were associated with frailty in females, but did not reach statistical significance in males. BMI and subcutaneous adipose tissue at L3 level were statistically lower in the frail male group compared to the prefrail group. BMI showed strong correlation with the subcutaneous area at the L3 level in both genders (Spearman's coefficient of 0.8, p < 0.001). Hypoalbuminemia and visceral obesity were not associated with frailty in either gender. CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the feasibility of using CT-derived body-composition parameters as a screening tool for frailty, which can offer an opportunity for early medical intervention.

Clinical significance of "positive" cervical spine MRI findings following a negative CT.

PURPOSE: To review and analyze the clinical significance of positive acute traumatic findings seen on MRI of the cervical spine (MRCS) following a negative CT of the cervical spine (CTCS) for trauma. METHODS: We performed a sub-cohort analysis of 54 patients with negative CTCS and a positive MRCS after spine trauma from the previous multicenter study of the Research Consortium of New England Centers for Trauma (ReCONECT). Both CTCS and MRCS were independently reviewed by two emergency radiologists and two spine surgeons. The surgeons also commented on the clinical significance of the traumatic findings seen on MRCS and grouped them into unstable, potentially unstable, and stable injuries. RESULTS: Among 35 unevaluable patients, MRCS showed one unstable (hyperextension) and two potentially unstable (hyperflexion) injuries. Subtle findings were seen on CTCS in 2 of 3 patients upon careful retrospective review that would have suggested these injuries. Of 19 patients presenting with cervicalgia, 2/5 (40%) patients with neurological deficit demonstrated clinically significant findings on MRCS with predisposing factors seen on CT. None of the 14 patients with isolated cervicalgia and no neurological deficit had clinically significant findings on their MRCS. CONCLUSION: While CTCS is adequate for clearing the cervical spine in patients with isolated cervicalgia, MRCS can play a critical role in patients with neurological deficits and normal CTCS. Clinically significant traumatic findings were seen in 8.5% of unevaluable patients on MRCS, though these injuries in fact could be identified on the CT in 2 of 3 patients upon careful retrospective review.

Upper extremity fractures due to intimate partner violence versus accidental causes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV)-related upper extremity fractures (UEF) in women presenting to US emergency departments (ED) and compare their anatomic location to those due to accidental falls or strikes. METHODS: An Institutional Review Board exempt, retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System's All Injury Program data from 2005 through 2015 for all UEF sustained in women 15 to 54 years old. Injuries based on reported IPV versus accidental falls or strikes were analyzed accounting for the weighted, stratified nature of the data. RESULTS: IPV-related UEF represented 1.7% of all UEF and 27.2% of all IPV fractures. The finger was the most common fracture site in IPV (34.3%) and accidental striking (53.3%) but accounted for only 10% of fall-related UEF. There was a higher proportion of shoulder fractures in IPV (9.2%) compared to accidental falls (7.4%) or strikes (2.9%). The odds of a finger fracture were 4.32 times greater in IPV than falling and of a shoulder fracture were 3.65 greater in IPV than accidental striking (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: While the finger is the most common site for IPV UEF, it is also the most common location for accidental striking. A lower proportion of finger fractures in fall and of shoulder/forearm fractures in accidental striking should prompt the radiologist to discuss the possibility of IPV with the ED physician in any woman presenting with a finger fracture due to fall and a shoulder/forearm fracture with a vague history of accidental striking.

Exacerbation of Physical Intimate Partner Violence during COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global social and public health problem, but published literature regarding the exacerbation of physical IPV during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is lacking. Purpose To assess the incidence, patterns, and severity of injuries in IPV victims during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 compared with the prior 3 years. Materials and Methods The demographics, clinical presentation, injuries, and radiologic findings of patients reporting physical abuse arising from IPV during the statewide COVID-19 pandemic between March 11 and May 3, 2020, were compared with data from the same period for the past 3 years. Pearson χ2 and Fisher exact tests were used for analysis. Results A total of 26 victims of physical IPV from 2020 (mean age, 37 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; 25 women) were evaluated and compared with 42 victims of physical IPV (mean age, 41 years ± 15; 40 women) from 2017 to 2019. Although the overall number of patients who reported IPV decreased during the pandemic, the incidence of physical IPV was 1.8 times greater (95% CI: 1.1, 3.0; P = .01). The total number of deep injuries was 28 during 2020 versus 16 from 2017 to 2019; the number of deep injuries per victim was 1.1 during 2020 compared with 0.4 from 2017 to 2019 (P < .001). The incidence of high-risk abuse defined by mechanism was two times greater in 2020 (95% CI: 1.2, 4.7; P = .01). Patients who experienced IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely to be White; 17 (65%) victims in 2020 were White compared with 11 (26%) in the prior years (P = .007). Conclusion There was a higher incidence and severity of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic compared with the prior 3 years. These results suggest that victims of IPV delayed reaching out to health care services until the late stages of the abuse cycle during the COVID-19 pandemic. © RSNA, 2020.

Upper extremity injuries in the victims of intimate partner violence.

OBJECTIVES: To recognize most common patterns of upper extremity (UE) injuries in victims of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). METHODS: Radiological review of 308 patients who reported physical IPV at our institution from January 2013 to June 2018, identified 55 patients with 88 unique UE injuries. Demographic data and injury patterns and associations were collected from the electronic medical records. RESULTS: The cohort included 49 females and 6 males (age 19-63, mean 38). At the time of injury, IPV was reported in 15/88 (17%) and IPV screening was documented for 22/88 (25%) injuries. There were 46 fractures, 8 dislocations or subluxations, and 34 isolated soft tissue injuries, most commonly involving the hand (56/88). Fractures most commonly involved the fingers (21/46, 46%) and the 5th digit (8/27, 30%). Medial UE fractures (5th digit, 4th digit) constituted 44% of hand and finger fractures (12/27) and 26% of all fractures (12/46). Comminuted and displaced fractures were rare (8/46, 17%). Head and face injuries were the most common concomitant injuries (9/22, 41%) and subsequent injuries (21/61, 35%). Of 12 patients with recurrent UE injuries, 6 had recurrent injuries of the same hand. Five of 6 non-acute fractures (83%) were of the hand. CONCLUSIONS: Hand and finger injuries are the most common UE injuries in patients with IPV, with finger being the most common site and medial hand the most common region of fracture. Repeated injuries involving the same site and a combination of medial hand and head or face injuries could indicate IPV. KEY POINTS: • Upper extremity injuries in victims of intimate partner violence are most commonly seen in the hand and fingers. • Fingers are the most common site of fracture and the medial hand is the most common region of fracture in the upper extremity in victims of intimate partner violence. • In intimate partner violence victims with upper extremity injuries, concomitant injuries and subsequent injuries are most commonly seen in the head and neck region.

Geographic Distribution of Orthopaedic Trauma Resources and Service Use in the United States: A Cross Sectional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of orthopaedic injury is an essential component of comprehensive trauma care, and availability of orthopaedic surgeons impacts trauma system capacity and accessibility of care. We sought to estimate the geographic distribution of orthopaedic injury in the United States and identify regions needing additional orthopaedic trauma resources. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study using 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality State Inpatient Datasets from 26 states and the District of Columbia, administrative data were used to determine hospital referral region (HRR)-level incidence of orthopaedic trauma and surgical care. Factors associated with HRR-level orthopaedic trauma volume were identified using negative binomial regression, and model parameters were used to estimate injury incidence and operative volume in unobserved HRRs. The primary outcomes of interest were HRR-level incidence of orthopaedic injury, polytrauma, and emergency orthopaedic surgery, as well and the number of emergency orthopaedic surgery patients per orthopaedic surgeon. RESULTS: Orthopaedic injury incidence and operative patients per orthopaedic surgeon were associated with HRR-level volume of medical service use, population characteristics, geographic characteristics, and existing trauma care resources. Orthopaedic injury incidence ranged from 20 patients/HRR to 33,260 patients/HRR. Polytrauma incidence ranged from < 10 patients/HRR to 12,140 patients/HRR. Emergency orthopaedic surgery incidence ranged from < 10 patients/HRR to 18,759 patients/HRR. The volume of operative orthopaedic trauma patients per orthopaedic surgeon ranged from < 10 patients/surgeon to 224 patients and/or surgeon. DISCUSSION: The incidence of orthopaedic injury and volume of injury patients per orthopaedic surgeon varies substantially across HRRs in the United States. Regions with high patient volume and moderate patient-to-provider ratios may be ideal settings for orthopaedic trauma training programs or post-fellowship professional opportunities. Future research should examine the impact of high volume orthopaedic trauma volume and high patient-to-provider ratios on health outcomes.

Radiological and clinical features of traumatic atlanto-occipital dislocation.

PURPOSE: We aimed to describe the findings of traumatic atlanto-occipital dislocation (AOD) on cervical spine CTs and differences leading to varying treatment of these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 20 adult patients with AOD from cervical spine CTs demonstrating fracture or fracture dislocations over 19 years at 2 major trauma centers. Medical records were reviewed and craniovertebral junction (CVJ) metrics measured on CT. Intubation, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), additional injuries, occiput/atlas/axis fracture, concurrent atlantoaxial subluxation, vascular injury on CT angiography, and ligamentous injury on MRI were noted. RESULTS: Using the Traynelis Classification, eight patients had type 2 and eight patients type 3 AOD. Four of 5 patients who died within 14 days of CT had type 2 AOD. Three patients had medial/lateral AOD. Of the patients who survived initial injuries, a greater percentage who underwent surgical or halo fixation versus non-operatively treated patients had abnormal CVJ measurements including BDI (62.5% vs 0%), atlantoaxial subluxation (75% vs 14.3%), ligamentous injury (80% vs 66.7%), intubation (62.5% vs 28.6%), GCS<8 (62.5% vs 14.3%), and additional injuries (75% vs 71.4%) on presentation. MRI helped identify 2 cases of type 2 AOD and surgical decision making in 8 cases. CONCLUSIONS: Types 2 and 3 were the most common, and type 2 is the deadliest type of AOD. A greater proportion of patients who undergo surgical or halo fixation have abnormal CT/MR findings with neurologic impairment at presentation. MRI aided detection of potentially missed type 2 AOD and was critical for surgical decision making.

Impact of MRI to clear the cervical spine after a negative CT for suspected spine trauma.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical presentation of trauma patients receiving a negative cervical spine MRI (CSMRI) after cervical spine CT (CSCT) without acute findings and calculate the associated costs. METHODS: Our cohort consisted of 55 retrospectively reviewed consecutive trauma patients with CSMRI performed between October 2016 and March 2020, who had negative CSCT within 7 days of CSMRI and no other clinically significant injuries. Our outcome was the cost related to CSMRI, estimated by CSMRI charges and the charges related to additional hours of prolonged hospital stay from CT until MRI. RESULTS: The most common presenting mechanisms of injury were fall from standing (20/55, 36%), followed by motor vehicle accident (18, 33%). Indications for CSMRI included persistent neck pain (32/55, 58%), followed by recommendation from the radiologist (12, 22%), and neurological symptoms concerning for spine injury (9, 16%). An average of 11.2 h (median: 8.5, range: 0.2-25.4 h) passed from CSCT to CSMRI. Fifty-four (98%) of the CSMRI exams were completed within 24 h of the CSCT. The Medicare reimbursement for non-contrast CSMRI is $309 with the average cost for waiting in ED observation of $907. The total cost of CSMRI and associated wait time ranged from $325 to $2366 with an average of $1216 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of negative CSMRI following a negative CSCT for cervical spine clearance in trauma patients without other significant injury is substantial. The length of time that trauma patients remain in observation in the cervical collar prior to the finalized MRI exam is not only distressing to the patient but also adds costs to health care systems in both time and resources.

Traumatic cervical spine fracture patterns on CT: a retrospective analysis at a level 1 trauma center.

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to determine common acute traumatic cervical spine fracture patterns on CT cervical spine (CTCS). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 1091 CTCS positive for traumatic fractures performed over a 10-year period at a level 1 trauma center. Fractures were classified by vertebral level, laterality, and anatomic location (anterior/posterior arch, body, odontoid, pedicle, facet, lateral mass, lamina, spinous process, transverse foramina, and transverse processes). RESULTS: C2 was the most commonly fractured vertebra (38% of all studies), followed by C7 (32.4%). 48.7% of studies had upper cervical spine (C1 and/or C2) fractures. 39.7% of positive studies involved > 1 vertebral level. Conditioned on fractures at one cervical level, the probability of fracture was greatest at adjacent levels with a 50% chance of sustaining a C7 fracture with C6 fracture. However, 31.3% (136) of studies with multi-level fractures had non-contiguous fractures. The most common isolated vertebral process fracture was of the transverse process, seen in 89 (8.2%) studies at a single level, 27 (2.5%) studies at multiple levels. Subaxial spine vertebral process fractures outnumbered body fractures with progressive dominance of vertebral process fracture down the spine. CONCLUSION: C2 was the most commonly fractured vertebral level. Multi-level traumatic cervical spine fractures constituted 40% of our cohort, most commonly at C6/C7 and C1/C2. Although the conditional probability of concurrent fracture in studies with multi-level fractures was greatest in contiguous levels, nearly one-third of multi-level fractures involved non-contiguous fractures.

Imaging patterns of lower extremity injuries in victims of intimate partner violence (IPV).

PURPOSE: To describe the pattern and distribution of lower extremity injuries in victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective radiological review of 688 patients reporting IPV to our institution's violence intervention and prevention program between January 2013 and June 2018 identified 88 patients with 154 lower extremity injuries. All lower extremity injuries visible on radiological studies were analyzed. Concomitant, recurrent, and associated injuries were also collected, in addition to the demographic data. RESULTS: The injuries consisted of 103 fractures, 46 soft tissue injuries, and 5 dislocations. The foot was the most common site of injury representing 39% (60/154) of total injuries, 48% (49/103) of fractures, 17% (8/46) of soft tissue injuries, and 3 dislocations. The ankle was the second most common site of injury representing 30% (47/154) of total injuries, 20% (21/103) of fractures, and 57% (26/46) of soft tissue injuries. Recurrent injuries of the lower extremity were seen in 30% (26/88) of victims who had 74 recurrent injuries. The most common sites of recurrent injury were the foot and ankle, representing 72% (53/74) of recurrent injuries. CONCLUSION: Recurrent injuries of the foot and ankle, synchronous craniofacial injuries, and upper extremity injuries in young women (<35 years) should prompt radiologists to consider IPV.

Incidence and characteristics of spinal injuries in the victims of intimate partner violence (IPV).

PURPOSE: To describe the incidence and patterns of the spinal injuries in the victims of physical IPV. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With institutional review board (IRB) approval, we retrospectively reviewed patients referred to our institution's domestic violence intervention and prevention program with a diagnosis directly related to physical abuse between January 2013 and June 2018. Electronic health records and radiology reports were reviewed for all patients. RESULTS: A total of 21/688 (3%) IPV patients with 41 vertebral injuries were identified. The study population comprised of 19/21 (90%) females. Median age of the included patients was 43 years with a range of 21-72 years. All vertebral injuries were AO type A spinal injuries. Upper lumbar spine (L1 and L2) was the most common level of injury followed by upper to mid-thoracic spine. The reported mechanism of the injury was IPV in 8/21 (38.0%), fall in 8/21(38.0%), and incidental in 5/21 (24.0%). Ten out of 21 (48%) patients had concomitant injuries, most commonly to the craniofacial region 5/21 (23%). Psychiatry history was positive in 17/21 (81%), and substance abuse was positive in 15/21 (71%) of the patients. CONCLUSION: Incidence of spinal injuries is relatively low in IPV with morphologic AO type A injury being the most common type of injury and the upper lumbar spine being the most common level of injury.

Clinical utility of a focused hip MRI for assessing suspected hip fracture in the emergency department.

PURPOSE: A focused hip MRI (FHMR) for the detection of radiographically occult hip fractures was implemented in our emergency department (ED) in 2013. The goal of this study was to assess the clinical utility of this protocol. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed radiology reports of 262 unique patients who underwent 263 FHMR (coronal T1, coronal STIR, axial T2 fat saturated) for suspected hip fracture in the ED from October 2013 to March 2020. Electronic medical records were reviewed for the ED course, follow-up imaging, and clinical management within 90 days. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients had one or more fractures identified by FHMR: one-third had proximal femoral fractures; two-third had pelvic fractures. Of these 71 patients, 53 (74%) had radiographically occult fractures, including 14 (20%) with occult proximal femoral fractures; 4 patients had fractures occult on CT. Nineteen patients with a suspected fracture on radiography were found to have no fracture on FHMR. Four fractures not reported on FHMR were later seen on follow-up imaging: these included 1 isolated greater trochanter, 1 additional ischial tuberosity, 1 additional superior pubic ramus, and 1 additional sacrum. All four fractures were treated non-operatively. Muscle/tendon injury was the most common type of injury, seen in 50% (130/262) patients with the most commonly torn tendons being the hamstring (44%; 15/34) followed by gluteus medius tendon (18%; 6/34). A full-hip or pelvis MRI was done after FHMR in only 5 patients, primarily for the purpose of better characterizing findings already identified on FHMR (2 for fracture, 2 for tendon injury, 1 for soft tissue metastasis). Only one of these five studies provided new information: ruling out a previously questioned fracture. Clinical management of the vast majority of patients was based solely on findings from the FHMR. CONCLUSIONS: FHMR offers reliable identification of radiographically occult hip fractures and muscle/tendon injuries. The protocol is well trusted in guiding patient management in our ED.

Do Medicare Accountable Care Organizations Reduce Disparities After Spinal Fracture?

BACKGROUND: National changes in health care disparities within the setting of trauma care have not been examined within Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or non-ACOs. We sought to examine the impact of ACOs on post-treatment outcomes (in-hospital mortality, 90-day complications, and readmissions), as well as surgical intervention among whites and nonwhites treated for spinal fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all beneficiaries treated for spinal fractures between 2009 and 2014 using national Medicare fee for service claims data. Claims were used to identify sociodemographic and clinical criteria, receipt of surgery and in-hospital mortality, 90-day complications, and readmissions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for all confounders was used to determine the effect of race/ethnicity on outcomes. Nonwhites were compared with whites treated in non-ACOs between 2009 and 2011 as the referent. RESULTS: We identified 245,704 patients who were treated for spinal fractures. Two percent of the cohort received care in an ACO, whereas 7% were nonwhite. We found that disparities in the use of surgical fixation for spinal fractures were present in non-ACOs over the period 2009-2014 but did not exist in the context of care provided through ACOs (odds ratio [OR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 1.28). A disparity in the development of complications existed for nonwhites in non-ACOs (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01, 1.17) that was not encountered among nonwhites receiving care in ACOs (OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.90, 1.95). An existing disparity in readmission rates for nonwhites in ACOs over 2009-2011 (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.01, 1.80) was eliminated in the period 2012-2014 (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65, 1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Our work reinforces the idea that ACOs could improve health care disparities among nonwhites. There is also the potential that as ACOs become more familiar with care integration and streamlined delivery of services, further improvements in disparities could be realized.

The National Burden of Orthopedic Injury: Cross-Sectional Estimates for Trauma System Planning and Optimization.

BACKGROUND: Management of orthopedic injuries is a critical component of comprehensive trauma care. As patterns of injury incidence and recovery change in the face of emerging injury prevention efforts and technologies and an aging US population, assessment of the burden of orthopedic injury is essential to optimize trauma system planning. We sought to estimate the incidence of orthopedic injury requiring emergency orthopedic surgery in the United States. METHODS: Using nationally representative samples from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, we estimated the incidence of orthopedic injury, polytrauma with orthopedic injury, and emergency operative orthopedic procedures performed for the management of traumatic injury. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify patient, injury, and hospital characteristics associated with odds of emergency orthopedic surgery. RESULTS: A total of 7,214,915 patients were diagnosed with orthopedic injury in 2013-2014, resulting in 1,167,656 emergency orthopedic surgical procedures. Fall-related injuries accounted for 51% of health care encounters and 61% of emergency orthopedic surgical procedures. Odds of emergency orthopedic surgery were 2.04 times greater for patients with polytrauma, compared with isolated orthopedic injury (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The total burden or orthopedic injury in the United States is substantial, and there is considerable heterogeneity in demand for care and practice patterns in the orthopedic trauma community. Population-based trauma system planning and tailored care delivery models would likely optimize initial treatment, recovery, and health outcomes for orthopedic trauma patients.